Now, if you want to depend on the UN and other international organizations for your security, then you can do so, but for me, I reject the UN and other international organizations when they criticize America for doing what was necessary to provide security for America.
Why do they and various others criticize these policies of the US? Because they ask that extremely significant question: 'At what cost?'
I think you and I have differing understandings of this. You see, I believe the most important law is God's Law and if you break such laws, you need to be made to face the consequences, regardless of who you are.
If we go back to earlier claims that you have made there is a serious contradiction, since you claim that a state must do "whatever it takes" to achieve victory in war; a very ambiguous phrase which justifies breaking God's Law to achieve victory. Now we take this statement, those who breach that Law must "face the consequences, regardless of who are."
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
“Our reason suffers the peculiar fate that … it is beset by questions which it cannot set aside, as they arise from the nature of Reason itself; but these questions it cannot answer, for they transcend all the powers of Reason.” - Immanuel Kant. Critique of Pure Reason. 1781
Note: J.R.R. Tolkien once said, "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." At the present time I'm pre-occupied with other more urgent issues that demand my full attention, and so I'll be off CF for several months. Wishing you well, Mithrandir.
What security? Iraq never posed a threat. They were in fact fighting against Al Quaeda. Which the US is claiming to want to do themselves. Good idea, that. Take out an enemy of your enemies. Very good call. What's more, they didn't have WMDs.
And what about us? Can we do what ever is necessary for our security, or are we subject to international laws and you are not? And if we are free to do whatever we please, then what about France? Or to pull it further, what about Russia? Or Iran? And who is to decide? You guys because you have the guns? China, because it owns the US? Europe, because we have the money?
Response
"Iraq never posed a threat" is the standard line for the Bush Haters.
In my opinion, Iraq was the only way to have an affect on the Islamic Terrorist. The Islamic Terrorist were located in Afghanistan, but were being supported by the Islamic leaders in every country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. The first effort on the War on Terrorism was to disrupt the Islamic Terrorist in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan was an unwinnable war because of supply routes, and guerilla fighting.
A lot of people say, "I could have done better", but if they were wrong, you pay a horrible price.
Iraq did use WMDs, did have a nuclear weapons program, did invade Kuwait, and fired rockets into Israel. Iraq was a winnable war that created an alternative to the Theocracies that control the Middle East. I believe Obama will be a failure in Afghanistan and that will produce a failure in Iraq, thus we will be back in the same place as before.
Your plea of "And what about us?" is very interesting. I understand that you do not have armies to defend yourself, but you had better make a wise choice about who you criticize. By criticizing America, you are supporting France, Russia, Iran, China, etc.
Law is useless unless there is punishment for violating the law. Law is also useless when it tries to do something that is impossible. Moral Law/God's Law can be effective in getting people to "love their neighbor as themselves" (after accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the Commandments/doctrines of the Bible), but Civil Law cannot cause people to "love their neighbor as themselves".
Civil Law is intended to and only works when in a punitive mode. Without punishment, Civil Law is worthless. War is the punishment for foreign enemies and the death penalty is punishment for domestic enemies/evil.
Your plea of "And what about us" shows that the whole world should be interested in who is President of America, because the security of the world is greatly dependent on both the domestic and foreign policies of America.
I believe President Bush did the best possible job that could have been done relative to the 9/11 attack on America, but it may take the a failure by the Obama Administration to prove that.
So... did Clirus ever suggest an actual impeachable offence, or what?
Other than Obama being a Democrat? I don't think so.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
“Our reason suffers the peculiar fate that … it is beset by questions which it cannot set aside, as they arise from the nature of Reason itself; but these questions it cannot answer, for they transcend all the powers of Reason.” - Immanuel Kant. Critique of Pure Reason. 1781
Note: J.R.R. Tolkien once said, "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." At the present time I'm pre-occupied with other more urgent issues that demand my full attention, and so I'll be off CF for several months. Wishing you well, Mithrandir.
If we go back to earlier claims that you have made there is a serious contradiction, since you claim that a state must do "whatever it takes" to achieve victory in war; a very ambiguous phrase which justifies breaking God's Law to achieve victory. Now we take this statement, those who breach that Law must "face the consequences, regardless of who are."
Response
To understand war and the death penalty is to understand the following verses from the Bible.
Numbers 21:3 "And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah"
Deuteronomy 2:33-34, "And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
Numbers 15:32-36, "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp".
God hates sin and sinners who corrupt the good things of God. God is a loving God because he will accept anyone that repents of their hate for God, as shown by their rejection of God and the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.
God sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross as the payment for sin for those who accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.
Both war (with what ever it takes to win) and the death penalty are part of the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.
40,000 men and women everyday, re-define happiness
Join Date: 11th August 2006
Posts: 4,596
Blessings: 24,598
Reps: 49,190,901,784,082 (power: 0)
In my opinion, Iraq was the only way to have an affect on the Islamic Terrorist. The Islamic Terrorist were located in Afghanistan, but were being supported by the Islamic leaders in every country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. The first effort on the War on Terrorism was to disrupt the Islamic Terrorist in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan was an unwinnable war because of supply routes, and guerilla fighting.
"There are terrorists in Afghanistan, supported by Saudi Arabians... So lets attack Iraq!"
Yeah. I don't get it.
I supported toppling Saddam, and I spent my 9 months in Iraq getting shot at, so I feel qualified to say that attacking Iraq as part of the nebulous "War on Terror" would be like attacking Egypt to end apartheid in South Africa.
Iraq did use WMDs, did have a nuclear weapons program, did invade Kuwait, and fired rockets into Israel. Iraq was a winnable war that created an alternative to the Theocracies that control the Middle East. I believe Obama will be a failure in Afghanistan and that will produce a failure in Iraq, thus we will be back in the same place as before.
(emphasis mine) I thought Iraq would be a winable war. I now see that it was not, and is not. And just how in the heck is ousting a SECULAR dictator and promoting a largely sectarian based political process an ALTERNATIVE to theocracies? If anything, our intervention in Iraq has made it much more of a theocracy than it was under Saddam!
If we go back to earlier claims that you have made there is a serious contradiction, since you claim that a state must do "whatever it takes" to achieve victory in war; a very ambiguous phrase which justifies breaking God's Law to achieve victory. Now we take this statement, those who breach that Law must "face the consequences, regardless of who are."
Response
To understand war and the death penalty is to understand the following verses from the Bible.
Numbers 21:3 "And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah"
Deuteronomy 2:33-34, "And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
Numbers 15:32-36, "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp".
God hates sin and sinners who corrupt the good things of God. God is a loving God because he will accept anyone that repents of their hate for God, as shown by their rejection of God and the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.
God sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross as the payment for sin for those who accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.
Both war (with what ever it takes to win) and the death penalty are part of the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.
No. They are not. Because a.) doing 'whatever it takes' to win necessitates the breaking of the Commandments. You cannot claim to value God's Law and then break it in the claim that you are simultaneously defending it!It is a contradiction. b.) Jesus did say that: 'Let he who is sinless cast the first stone', thereby demonstrating that in a just world we would all deserve death, and yet none of us may grant death so righteously given that we all deserve it, and c.) the Lord does say, "Vengeance is mine." Do we seriously wish to substitute God's perfect judgment for our own fallible one?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
“Our reason suffers the peculiar fate that … it is beset by questions which it cannot set aside, as they arise from the nature of Reason itself; but these questions it cannot answer, for they transcend all the powers of Reason.” - Immanuel Kant. Critique of Pure Reason. 1781
Note: J.R.R. Tolkien once said, "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." At the present time I'm pre-occupied with other more urgent issues that demand my full attention, and so I'll be off CF for several months. Wishing you well, Mithrandir.
40,000 men and women everyday, re-define happiness
Join Date: 11th August 2006
Posts: 4,596
Blessings: 24,598
Reps: 49,190,901,784,082 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by bjspurple
No. They are not. Because a.) doing 'whatever it takes' to win necessitates the breaking of the Commandments. You cannot claim to value God's Law and then break it in the claim that you are simultaneously defending it!It is a contradiction. b.) Jesus did say that: 'Let he who is sinless cast the first stone', thereby demonstrating that in a just world we would all deserve death, and yet none of us may grant death so righteously given that we all deserve it, and c.) the Lord does say, "Vengeance is mine." Do we seriously wish to substitute God's perfect judgment for our own fallible one?
Yes, I did notice all the Bible verses he was quoting are old Testament, and he neatly managed to avoid any reference to Christ's new covenant. awful inconvenient all that love and forgiveness stuff, when you're really determined to go burnign people who disagree with you at the stake for being from Kenya.
Socialism and atheism? The two are not synonymous. No more than capitalism and satanism is. Though there are some similarities there, namely the rights of the strong and the lack of rights for the weak.
Oh, and as I have pointed out - the first Christians were communists. So I am at a loss as to why you think socialism and atheism both synonymous when close to two thousand years ago there were some people who lived in communistic societies, the Christians. Who also, because of this loving behaviour were dubbed "little Christs". But I guess you're right. Love has been tried, measured and found want. Bombs and guns are so much better. Especially if you throw in some torture and the like as well.
Response
The first Christians got into communism, but the later books of the Bible show they found that communism does not work even for Christians. Socialism/Communism does not work because there will always be people that are lazy and will not do their fair share of the work. This discourages the rest and so the whole thing fails. Capitalism creates unequal prosperity, and Socialism creates equal poverty.
faith guardian quote
Well, with all due respect I doubt you know what socialism is. Once capitalism gained a hold in eastern Europe porn, prostitution and fornication all went through the roof.
Response
Porn, prostitution and fornication all went through the roof in Europe, because the influence of Christianity had become so weak that it could not control the evil influence of Capitalism. Capitalism is evil but Christianity can control Capitalism.
Linear Mode
